Saturday, April 8, 2017

Libertarianism vs Nationalism. Why Nationalism is the Answer

Donald Trump's supporters are becoming disillusioned with Zionist-Globalist War Cries emanating from Washington D.C. Whatever happened to nationalism over globalism? Whatever happened to no more wars and focusing on the problems facing American people?

It just goes to show that a people cannot rely on just one man.

It's like Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, but his people couldn't just rely on his leadership and vision. After all, even great men fade, fall, or die eventually. So, Moses had to provide his people with the Law, the vessel of principles and meaning. That way, with or without him, the Hebrews had something to guide them and set them straight through the ages.

Likewise, white people need something more than Trump or Putin. Putin won't live forever, and Trump has shown himself to be a huckster and opportunist. He's not to be trusted. Also, Jewish Power is so entrenched in the US that it's difficult for Trump to outmaneuver the Jews even if he wanted to. In contrast, Russia was such an anything-goes anarcho-gangster state in the 90s that someone like Putin with deep state instincts and connections could pull off a counter-coup against the oligarchs.

Anyway, white people need a sense of who they are, what they are, where they came from, and how their origins must guide them into the future. Trump was useful in shaking up the system for a year, but he has to deal with the reality of the Deep State and powerful institutions being controlled by Jews and/or globalists.

One thing for sure, white people need to reject libertarianism that has defined so much of 'conservative' thought. Consider soulless and spineless asses like Paul Ryan.
While individualism and freedom are valuable, libertarianism goes too far in lionizing them above all else. It is the ideology of "I got mine, and I don't care about others, even or especially for those of my own race/ethnicity."
The problem is not one's conviction in individuality, independence, responsibility, personal success, and criticism of those paying the price for poor decisions. After all, the kind of leftism that mindlessly fawns upon the poor and the 'powerless' is pretty useless. It has a knee-jerk tendency to see success as 'greed' and failure as 'nobility'. In fact, many people, especially in a free society, messed up in life due to poor/stupid decisions. And they must realize this and act more sensibly in life. To be free means to be accept the consequences of one's freedom.

The important thing is there is a sensible middle-ground between Libertarianism and Socialism. Libertarianism is so radically self-centered that its adherents care only about their own successes. Or, if unsuccessful themselves, they fawn on those with money and power with toady-like slavishness. Theirs is a worldview of arrogance and contempt. According to libertarianism, the winners must be great and wonderful since they used their smarts and freedom to rise high. Libertarianism tends to ignore how ability and success can easily lurch into corruption, abuses, and exploitation. It's like even naturally talented athletes will cheat by using steroids or dirty tricks.
Socialism, in contrast, is so sanctimonious in its righteous compassion that it refuses to see the flaws and failings of groups deemed as 'victims'. So, lower classes are just saints with hearts of gold who, if they act crazy, are just rebelling with justified rage against oppression.
Blacks, refugees, and immigrants are automatically good for belonging to a 'marginalized' group. Such lack of critical mentality in socialism fails to come up with useful advice to the 'losers' of the world. By fawning on such peoples, socialism only encourages the 'victim' groups to feel sorry for themselves, feel self-righteous in relation to have-mores, and justified no matter how stupid they act.

The Left has done itself no favors with this brand of socialism. It always gives useless or even destructive advice to the people it purports to help because of its dogmatic sentimentality about the poor, the minorities, or the 'wretched of the earth'. So, if blacks riot and burn down a city, the Left just sees blacks as noble and justified. So, if a bunch of Muslims leave their own nations to seek better material lives by illegally barging into the West, they are to be coddled as the 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free' instead of as craven opportunists.
Imagine a parent who never straightens out his children but always makes excuses for them. Imagine a teacher who never accuses his student for bad behavior but only makes excuses as if it's never the student's fault. There can be no progress, no improvement, and no rectitude with such attitude. This is why leftism has been such a catastrophe. The problem is not its concern for fellow man(who may be down and out) but the lack of courage to be critical of those in need of help. Even if a people are with privilege or less advantage, they must be judged and corrected when they do wrong. It's like Moses sometimes had to be tough with his people even if they were a sorry desperate lot.

But libertarianism has its own problems. While it does have some positive ideas like individuality, freedom, responsibility, and work ethic, it is obsessively about the self at the expense of all other considerations. In regard to humanity, it only sees single individual selves, not a people with the common bond of ethnicity, culture, history, or territory.
Libertarianism isn't wrong to espouse the ideal of individual success by individual effort. After all, no one should expect others to do his homework for him. Where libertarianism fails is the total unconcern for anything but the self(or the various individual selves). If the self has it good, a libertarian feels no compunction to care about anyone else. But with such unconcern, a libertarian cannot have a meaningful identity, culture, or sense of history.
He is just an atomized individual in a globo-cosmopolitan universe. Since he identifies only as an individual and sinks-or-swims as a mere individual, his heart and mind have no connection to anything beyond the self. As such, it cannot have a wider or deeper sense of community across time and space. Libertarianism sees lots of dots but never connect the dots to form a large picture.

Consider two individuals. One is a Libertarian Jew who is totally radical about his libertarian principles. The other is a Jewish nationalist. Now, suppose both individuals believe in individuality, responsibility, and ambition. Suppose both Jews gain success. In that regard, they have much in common.
However, the Libertarian Jew is only concerned with the individual, the self. He only cares about his individual freedom and success. And he considers rest of humanity ONLY AS INDIVIDUALS. So, he sees successful individuals, middling individuals, and failure-individuals. He has no other consideration of who-they-are when dealing with humanity.

In contrast, the other guy, the Jewish nationalist, has a sense of ethnic, historical, and cultural identity. He doesn't see himself merely an individual but also as a person of a specific racial community. So, even though he also sees a world composed of successful individuals, middling individuals, and failure-individuals, he also sees a world made up of cultures and tribes. And he feels a unity with the people of his tribe/culture, the Jews of the world. So, even though, purely on the basis of economics and individual worth, he is more like rich Hindus, rich Anglos, and rich Chinese, he feels a deep connection with all other Jews, rich-middle-poor. And if possible, he would like to do something that serves the interests of all Jews on the racial, cultural, territorial, or historical level. Meanwhile, the Libertarian Jew feels no such feelings when it comes to other Jews. They are just individuals, and some are successful, and some are not.

Now, suppose there's a Jewish community in some part of the world and something horrible is happening to it. The Libertarian Jew's attitude is, "Why should I care?" Since he only sees himself as an individual among other individuals, why should he care MORE about what happens to some Jewish community than what happens to some other community? After all, bad things are happening all the time in some part of the world. Earthquake could destroy a community in Iran. Hurricane can destroy a community in Florida. Famine could destroy a community in Ethiopia. Flood can ruin a community in Japan.
So, why should the Libertarian Jew care more about what happens to a Jewish community? After all, his special concern for Jews would be going against his own Libertarian principles.
It might be deemed 'racist', 'supremacist', and 'exclusive'. For him to care more for a tragedy befalling a Jewish community would mean his emotions are playing racial-favorites. It means he's thinking collectively and nationalistically than as an individual committed only to principles of colorblind freedom, liberty, and success. So, even though, in a broad sense, he might feel a generic sympathy for any group facing hardship or horrors --- and donate to humanitarian charities for trouble-spots around the world --- , he doesn't feel an obligation to care more about suffering Jews than any other people. So, he sees suffering Jews only in a generic way. They are suffering like the rest of humanity that is suffering, and that's that. And there is no need for him to feel especially bad about the plight of his people. So, even though there are some Jews suffering really badly in some part of the world, he feels no special connection with or obligation toward them. As such, he feels just fine going about his daily business and is concentrating on persona/professional interests. So, if HE is rich and happy, all's fine with the world. His happiness isn't associated with what happens to a bunch of Jews in some part of the world.

In contrast, the Jewish Nationalist feels as part of a larger ethno-humanity. No matter how well he may be doing, no matter how well-off he is personally and professionally, and no matter how safe & secure he and his family are, he doesn't feel happy or feel all's well with the world IF there are terribly suffering Jews in some part of the world. He sees them as a part of an extended family. So, their suffering is, at least partly, his suffering as well. He feels a connection to others of his kind. His life doesn't revolve around himself. His life revolved around something bigger and deeper, a sense of being part of a history and culture.

There's a scene in SANDS OF IWO JIMA where a soldier goes on break. He's supposed to return quickly and aid his company, but he prolongs his recess to take it easy. As the result, his fellow soldiers end up getting killed because of his absence. He is overcome with shame and guilt. His extended break proved negligent and led to the death of his compatriots.
The Jewish Nationalist feels in a similar way in relation to other Jews. He feels that all Jews should care about one another. This doesn't mean that some Jews should work so that others can freeload off them. Such dependence would be parasitic and opportunistic. No, his ideal is for a kind of interdependence whereby, despite every Jew's effort to gain success on his own, he would be mindful of what's happening with the worldwide Jewish community. So, if some Jews are seriously hurting in some part of the world, other Jews should feel obligated to do something, like when American Jews lent a hand to Soviet Jews. Such compassion may be tribal than universal, but universalism is too generic for meaningful emotions. After all, it's impossible for anyone to care about all the families around the world. Naturally, one cares more for one's own family. Trying to help or save all the peoples around the world would be impossible. Besides, universalists only force themselves into pretending to care about other groups as for one's own. 20th century was filled with lots of horrors, but Jews have been fixated on the Holocaust. Why? Would Jews have cared so much if it had been directed only at Polish Catholics and not Jews? It's only natural that Jews would care more about fellow Jews.

For a person to care ONLY ABOUT THE SELF AND CLOSE ONES would be petty. For a person to care for ALL OF HUMANITY would be generic, more a case of virtue-signaling than any meaningful or consequential. The middle-ground for meaningful human emotions is ethno-culturalism. A Polish person shouldn't just care about the self or the individual. But it'd be too daunting for him to care about all of humanity. Univeralism will always be generic and confused.
The meaningful balance can be found in ethno-culturalism: A Pole who cares about Polish-ness as a people, culture, nation, and history. Let him defend and preserve Polish-ness, and let other peoples of other nationalities defend and preserve their own identities and heritages.
It's like different departments in colleges focus on different things. Chemistry department focuses on chemistry, not on the law. The Accounting Department focuses on accounting, not on agriculture or rocket science. It would be absurd to expect every academic department to focus on every discipline & every field of knowledge and welcome any student with any interest. Likewise, every nation has its own specialization in ethnicity, culture, territory, history, and mythology(collective narrative). Specialization allows the university to maintain the various departments. People of each department specialize in a certain field and maintain expertise in it. So, those in psychology maintain knowledge about psychology, and those in film studies maintain knowledge on the art of cinema. We don't condemn such specialization as 'academic tribalism' or 'academic exclusionism'. For every department to be expert in its specialty, it has to concentrate on certain kinds of knowledge at the expense/exclusion of other kinds of knowledge. So, if a department is about teaching foreign languages, it would be stupid for it include physics and finance as well in the name of 'academic inclusion'.

Likewise, each nation has its own special history. And each nation is stamped by a unique story of a dominant ethnic group. And each nation has a rich history, culture, folklore, and tradition. It is up to each people of each nation to safeguard, preserve, defend, and disseminate this specialized body of national-cultural knowledge among all its members. Each person of a nation must be seen as a student & scholar of its ethnicity, history, culture, and territory.
Just like everyone in a college department must gain expert knowledge of the department's subject, every person of a nation should try to be an expert on that nation's history, culture, arts, geography, and etc.
It is the loss of such mindset under the pressures of globalism that has made so many people into bad students of their own identity, history, and culture. It is no wonder they are flunking in national survival and self-preservation. Poisoned by globalism that says every nation must inclusively accept ALL nationalities across its borders, people are no longer compelled to become knowledgeable patriots of their ethnicity, history, and culture.

Imagine if the French language department was accused of specializing in French and not welcoming other disciplines. So, suppose the French department declares itself as no longer exclusively about French and allows people from engineering, agriculture, ceramics, photography, law, medicine, and etc into the department. So, what would the French department be about now? It'd be deemed 'nativist' or 'racist' for the department to be about French above other disciplines. But the people in the department only know French, and they know nothing of other disciplines. And people who specialize in other disciplines feel lost wandering around the French department which is ill-equipped to serve their interests. In time, every disciple that's been allowed into the French department suffers since no one is allowed to meaningfully concentrate on anything. Only by everyone returning to his own department and only by French department concentrating on French will all departments flourish.

Likewise, all nations have more to gain by maintaining their own peoples, cultures, histories, and territories. Let the French preserve what is French in France. Let Cameroonians preserve what is Cameroonian in Cameroon, and let Algerians preserve what is Algerian in Algeria. Let different specialize in their own ethnicity, territory, history, and narrative. And once each nation is preserved in such manner, the world can share and exchange each other's ideas, stories, achievements, and etc... just like various departments in colleges can share its general knowledge with other departments that specialize in their own disciplines.

We need a robust nationalism that encourages each person to be an expert in his folk, history, and culture of his/her nation. And it should be seen as a lifelong pursuit than something only learned in schools. A person with no such interest or investment should be seen as a flunk. What's the point of being a member of a nation if one has no interest in it? It'd be like being part of college department without having any knowledge of its subject.

Anyway, a nationalist doesn't only care about himself or look upon humanity as a collection of 'free individuals' in a borderless world. That would be a libertarian. A nationalist believes that certain peoples, histories, and territories became interwoven to form special 'cultures' that need to be preserved, ideally by those with blood ties to the cultures. Surely, a black African feels a deeper connection when he looks upon the artifacts of his culture. While anyone can appreciate African art on the aesthetic level, it is more than mere art to those of the race and culture that created it. Similarly, Chinese culture surely means more to people of Chinese lineage. It's like Jewish things in Jerusalem means more to a Jew than to a Japanese, for whom the gardens of Kyoto have special meaning.

Globalism wages war on the specialization of cultures, histories, and peoples. It tries to turn all cultures into Cultures-for-Dummies: bland, generic, superficial, interchangeable. Globalism tries to turn every nation into Nation-for-Dummies.
In contrast, nationalism believes that each person of should become an expert of one's identity, history, and culture. Also, if the people of the culture fail in this, they mustn't expect any other people to do it for them. If Hungarians give up on Hungary, non-Hungarians will not fill the void? If Hungarians decide to abandon their culture, who will preserve it for them? Africans? Mexicans? Japanese? Brazilians? No chance.
And even if another people did decided to preserve it for Hungarians, it still wouldn't be the same. It'd be like Chinese preserving the Kenyan nation, or Nigerians speaking Polish and pretending to be Polish Catholics. It'd be just 'larping'. If Jews gave up on Jewish identity and culture AND if Hawaiians or Gypsies took up the mantle of Jewishness, would it be the same? Of course not. No more than if Vietnamese took over Congo and pretended to be New Congolese.

For a nationalist, the meaning of freedom and justice cannot derive solely from personal well-being. No matter how free and well-off he may be as an individual, he doesn't feel truly free and secure as long as others of his kind are suffering or living in bondage. He feels a 'psychic' connection with others of his own kind. It's like a father cannot enjoy his meal no matter how much food he is served if he knows his own children are going hungry. It's like a son cannot enjoy his meal no matter how much food he is served if he knows his parents are starving. A nationalist sees his people as part of his larger family.

A libertarian has no special feeling for others of his own kind. He only cares about himself and generic sense of humanity as individuals. So, if people of his ethnicity are suffering, he doesn't see them as 'my people'. He just sees them as suffering individuals no different from other suffering individuals in some other part of the world. A true-blue Libertarian Jew would be no more disturbed by Jews being rounded up and killed than by any other people being rounded up and killed. He would be appalled but no more appalled than by violence committed to any other group.

Of course, few Jews feel that way. Jews, even those who claim to be libertarian, feel a great deal of tribal camaraderie with other Jews around the world. Jews know this feeling is the source of their power, resilience, unity, and will to survive.
Now, it'd be nice if Jews, in valuing the meaningfulness of such tribalism, respected similar feelings among other peoples. But Jews won't tolerate such among whites because white gentiles with a sense of tribal compassion may favor their own kind's interests than prioritize Jewish interests. After all, if white gentiles felt special compassion & loyalty to their own kind, they'd be less to partial to sacrificing their own interests in favor of Jewish ones. In some cases, they might see Jewish interests as threatening to their own and work against them. And this is why Jews will not tolerate tribal-communion compassion among white gentiles. (This is why Jews use three methods to make sure whites serve Jewish interests uber alles. First, Jews try to persuade whites that Jewish/Israeli interests and American/European interests are one and the same. So, what is good for Israel is good for the US, no ifs and buts about it. And Western Values are synonymous with Jewish values. Second, Jews tell whites that nationalism is passe, and therefore, whites must adopt Universal Values. Oddly enough, however, once whites are made to forgo white identity in favor of universalism, Jews steer whites toward to serving Zionism and Jews above humanity as a whole. In other words, it's a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose'. When Jews say people must surrender nationalism for universalism, it doesn't mean apply to Jews who are, if anything, celebrated for clinging to their nationalism. Also, 'universalism' is a sham because deracinated and de-nationalized whites are then steered to serve specifically Jewish interests than truly universal ones. To be sure, Jews mask their tribal interests with faux-principles about 'human rights', 'war on terror', and 'liberal democracy', but just about everything Jews push under such labels goes toward serving Jewish or Zionist interests. Third, Jews not only advise whites to adopt universalism but go all out to smear even the faintest whiff of white identity as 'nazi' and 'white supremacism'. Therefore, whites are made an offer they can't refuse. They must reject nationalism in favor of 'universalism' that, however, is configured only to serve Jewish tribal interests and Zionism. The current trouble with Russia and Syria has everything to do with Jewish obsessions and nothing else, at least from the standpoint of the US.) If Jews are killed by Palestinians, Jews care a great deal about Jewish victims. Indeed, they use the media to make even gentiles to care for Jewish victims. But whites are not supposed to feel any kind of racial compassion for their own kind.

So, there's hardly been ANY expression of sympathy or alarm about all those whites who've been brutally robbed, raped, and/or murdered in South Africa. And Germans are not supposed to care about German victims of migrant rapists. French are not supposed to care about French victims of Muslim violence or African thuggery. And in the US, whites are never allowed to express racial camaraderie with fellow whites attacked by blacks or overrun by non-white immigrants. Ethno-Compassion has been stamped out for whites... but whites are pressured to feel compassion for Jews(every crisis is a new holocaust), blacks(black lives matter), homos, and immigrants, even illegal ones("we have to keep families together"). But when it comes to white identity and interests? Forget about it. If anything, non-whites are encouraged to insult whiteness(despite their desire to move to and live in white nations), and even many whites have been mentally-colonized to spit on their own identity and history. Whites are only allowed, indeed compelled, to feel racial compassion for other groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos.

This must all change.

No comments:

Post a Comment